You're viewing a single thread.
I don't think the NYT is untrustworthy wholesale. They still break some stories early, have insider sources for political stories, etc
But they're also very much an outlet committed to making money over most else, have no sympathy for explicit anti-capitalism, and will run just the worst op-eds from the worst people.
Any Outlet focused on making money over anything else. Is definitionally untrustworthy. That doesn't mean they cannot publish decent things from time to time. It just means that you cannot trust what they publish to always be correct
"From time to time" is an extremely disingenuous assessment of the NYT's record for fact-checking and investigating. But yes, it cannot always be correct; you do need to be mindful if you ever start reading any source entirely uncritically.
That was less a particular assessment of the times, and more a generalization. But I agree.
Yeah, this post feels like classic splitting. I think Gell-Mann amnesia is a real thing that more people need to be conscientious of, but that just means you should be critical of what you're reading. There are few major newspapers I would seriously blanket consider "untrustworthy", and the NYT is categorically not one of them. Sowing black-and-white distrust in generally reliable press is exactly the bullshit the far-right and disinformation farms (whatever the difference even is now) want.
They're now on equal footing with the Post.